Skip to main content

About your Search

20120929
20121007
STATION
CSPAN 4
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
CNN 1
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
a lot of hot button issues. >> yeah. the most recently retired justices were john paul stevens went out at 90. david souter 69, sandra day o'connor 75. is there a tradition of when justices usually retire, be it age, or time served? >> well, they're like most human beings. a lot of factors weigh in. there is -- there was a tradition where justices would tend to retire during the term of a president that was at the same party that appointed them. but we know neither justices souter nor stevens did that. they were both republican employees and went out during president obama's term. life circumstances can drive retirement decisions. so it's really not scientifically predictable or politically predictable. >> do you see any most likely candidates if another seat opens up under president obama? >> you know, i think if president obama, first of all, justice ruth bader ginsburg i think the pressure to replace her with another woman appointee would be enormous. we've made progress in getting a third of the court female and i don't think president obama or any president would want to go backwar
communications between ambassador stevens and the state department. >> at a time most americans would want to rally around our country at the death of four americans serving our country instead we've had this bizarre response which only leads me to believe, number one, there was gross negligence or incompetence involved or this administration doesn't want all of us to realize that libya may now be a failed state if the fbi agents who are well-trained can't even make it into benghazi. >> with growing calls for ambassador susan rice resign over her comments that benghazi was a demonstration spun out of control had strong defense this weekend by senior obama cam main advisor. >> i was shocked to see representative king attack ambassador rice because she was acting on the intelligence given her to the intelligence community. to say she should resign, she is one of the most remarkable splendid public servants that is thoroughly irresponsible. >> reporter: two final observations about axelrod's comments. number one, susan rice went way beyond the assessment here given by the director of national
including ambassador chris stevens. it a violent end to a spontaneous protest over an anti-muslim film. but an investigation found c evidence to the contrary. >>> criticism from republicans over the initial response. now, one high-ranking republican wants u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice to step down. new york congressman peter king says rice is to be held account aable for her statements on the attack. here's what he told our wolf blitzer. >> i believe this was such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership. such a misstatement of the facts as known at the time and for her to go on all those showers and be misinforming the american people and our allies and countries around the world, to me, somebody has to pay the price first. we have so much things to go wrong and everyveryone forgets t it the next day. an american ambassador who was killed where by all the accumulation of evidence at the time the prezusumption had to b it was terrorism. it is definitivety terrorism, to say it was not terrorism at that time was a, to me, terrible mistake to make, whether it
three justices to leave, o'connor, suitor, stevens, all moderate republicans, they are gone. they have either gone to the democrat, suitor and stevens gave their seats to obama. the republicans who have been appoi appointed, john roberts reflect the modern republican party. mitt romney, to be sure, would nominate someone like cavanagh, a young judge on the d.c. circuit. very conservative. not moderate republicans. that's why one seat would make such a difference. >> and those two have very clear records as did john roberts and sam aledo. we knew exactly who they were and what they would do. the senate wasn't ready to really look at that record and make an issue. >> can i ask a theoretical question. there's two ways of thinking about this. there should be a deference to the executive in naming nominees that comport with the president's legal philosophy, ideolo ideology. applying confidence because they are qualified for the job and hey, this is politics and a woman's right to choose on the line, this is a war against all against all. do what it takes. which is your belief system? >> you
that ambassador stevens and the others were killed because of the security at the compound? >> i think you have to say there is a direct link. but when you are cutting the security, why whereelse aren't we able to fund the measures? but, no. ic another legitimate issue is, how much has al qaeda become innerwoven within the hour of spring? this is a legitimate issue for both candidates. have that changed and attacking us here on the homeland toet if our consulates overseas? if so, how much has congress and the united states administration come together to fund adequately all of our worries and state departments throughout the global environment of the world? >> brad, if there was the shift by al qaeda, should the administration have come out with what they said that it was a dopey movie? >> eric tfit their narrative at the time. they wanted the world to believe and americans to believe that the youtube video was the causation for the attack in libya. we know that that is false. what is worse, and the admiral is right, al qaeda is interwoven throughout the arab spring in numerous countries. but w
christopher stevens and three others. these images echo the worst -- the recall those moments in 1979 with the taking of american hostages at the embassy in iran. u.s. taxpayers gave an enormous $1.6 billion to egypt, which is now run by a former member of the muslim brotherhood. should the u.s. give up foreign aid to these nations, mr. sadler? >> no. not now, we have a fledgling government being formed a. with egypt withholding funds, the editorial board agreed is time for us to stop the old on that aid. it is in our best interests to stay involved. if we do not stay involved, russia, china, and other countries with in this world will i do not think to cut off the aid. >> mr. cruz? >> this is another area of clear disagreement. we should not be funding those who are contrary to our interest. the only justification for continuing that aid or any portion of it is it to protect national security interests of the united states. we should use that aid as extensive leverage to protect national security interest. we should not be writing a blank check. look at the nation of egypt, the musli
.s. ambassador chris stevens and three others their lives. former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld joins us to discuss these latest develops later this hour. stay tuned for that. ♪ >> if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. period. if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. period. no one will take it away, no matter what. alisyn: well, new questions today about that now-famous promise from the president. two major american employers have announced what some call a, quote, radical change in how they provide health benefits to their workers. sears holdings corp. and dorden restaurants which owns chains like red lobster and olive garden are now dropping company-sponsored health care coverage, and instead they're giving employers a fixed sum of money allowing them to choose their own medical coverage. so let's debate this. steve moore, senior economics writer for "the wall street journal", dr -- [inaudible] ceo of vital springs technologies and author of "get off the dime: the secret of changing who pays for your health care." an
. the evolution of what might be the truth of what happened regarding the killing of ambassador chris stevens and three others at the consulate there in libya. now the director of national intelligence is weighing in. is he giving cover to susan rice for the administration's wobbling evolution on the truth? >> we may see how this argument is now about to play out. right? we had a debate on the show a little while ago. fascinating because i was hearing from mark lavine, radio talk show host. argument from the left that this intelligence may have been muddled from the beginning and they were making their way to uncover it this is what the director of national intelligence is now saying it was on us, basically, not the white house. read. this in the intermeet adaftermath there was information that led us to assess that the attack began response stainously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in cairo. we provided that assessment to the white house and men's of congress who used that information to discuss that attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. through th
to come to these things. you took a murky topic and made it clear. as the attorney of steven colbert, will he use that money to try to win the emmy from jon stewart? my real question is -- it is difficult to change. this is a time when things are so polarized. with new technology where everybody has their own axe to grind, address that as a dissuading factor. if i go home tonight, i can do whatever i want to as many people as i can reach. that is different from the time of jefferson. ben franklin are someone only needed to set that in print and now all you need to is to press a button. how does that fit into a campaign? >> obama cannot raise the money without technology. the net is different from a newspaper. you can say whatever you want an infinite number of people can read that. no one will know you wrote that unless you put money behind it or have a way of promoting it. there are similar barriers. you cannot say you're printing press is as important as someone else's printing press. it is more complicated. >> question surprised me. going to say we took a simple subject and made
on the consulate resulted in the death of the american ambassador christopher stevens and three others. these images echo the worst -- the recall those moments in 1979 with the taking of american hostages at the embassy in iran. u.s. taxpayers gave an enormous $1.6 billion to egypt, which is now run by a former member of the muslim brotherhood. should the u.s. give up foreign aid to these nations, mr. sadler? >> no. not now, we have a fledgling government being formed a. with egypt withholding funds, the editorial board agreed is time for us to stop the old on that aid. -- to stop the hold on that day. it is in our best interests to stay involved. if we do not stay involved, russia, china, and other countries with in this world will i do not think to cut off the aid. >> mr. cruz? >> this is another area of clear disagreement. we should not be funding those who are contrary to our interest. the only justification for continuing that aid or any portion of it is it to protect national security interests of the united states. we should use that aid as extensive leverage to protect national
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)